FCC proposes network neutrality rules (and big exemptions)

The FCC unveiled its six network neutrality rules today, along with a pair of …

As expected, the FCC laid out its draft network neutrality rules at an open meeting today. Despite the partial dissent of the two Republican commissioners, the pro-neutrality faction has won a major rhetorical battle; even its toughest opponents sing the praises of a "free and open Internet."

The draft rules are short, taking up less than two pages of text. At their heart are the four existing "Internet freedoms" that the FCC approved back in 2005:

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice

Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement

Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network

Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The proposed rules make the principles binding, but they also add two new items to the list: nondiscrimination and transparency.

A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner

A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Exceptional rules

Are there exceptions? Of course there are, and the ways that the exceptions are put into practice will have a significant effect on US network design.

First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the previous (nonexistent) guidance.

Network management is reasonable if it is used

To manage congestion on networks

To address harmful traffic (viruses, spam)

To block unlawful content (child porn)

To block unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement)

For "other reasonable network management practices"

The ambiguity of that last item is striking, and we'll have to see what sorts of things the FCC allows in practice before understanding just how wide this exemption really is.

The second exemption to the rules is for "managed services," another hazy area. FCC staff are defining managed services as offerings that are provided over the same networks as regular Internet access but that "differ from broadband Internet access service in ways that suggest a different policy approach." This includes things like voice services and telemedicine, but it's obviously a pretty broad category, and the FCC is asking for guidance on how to define it.

It appears that the agency is looking for ways to let telcos and cable companies offer additional, prioritized services over a single line, things like analog and digital voice, cable TV, and low-latency connections for medical use.

The rules apply to every Internet connection, wired and wireless, though what is "reasonable" may vary by connection type and even by network speed. As Commissioner Michael Copps put it in his supporting remarks, "What is reasonable today might be unreasonable tomorrow—and vice versa" as networks expand.

There's nothing new here?

Chairman Genachowski pitched the move as evolutionary rather than revolutionary, noting that the FCC in the past (and under Republican leadership) had already adopted the four Internet principles, slapped network neutrality conditions on the AT&T/BellSouth merger, and made the decision to sanction Comcast.

And while he's willing to listen to everyone, people should know that "'anything goes' is not a serious argument" at the Genachowski-led FCC. He argued that proper rules are a spur to investment, not a barrier, and says that he remains fully aware of "the risk of unintended consequences." Hence, the rules are meant to be brief, and to be general, with several big exemptions so as not to bind the agency's hands in the future.

The three Democratic commissioners also called out the scariest rhetoric surrounding network neutrality rules. Mignon Clyburn singled out the parties that prefer "radioactive rhetoric" and said it might yield headlines but not good results with her. Copps bashed the "Chicken Littles running around proclaiming the sky's falling" and called for facts, not fear.

Even those who opposed the rules were limited in their criticism; both Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker applauded the process so far and the idea of the open Internet. Comcast's statement opened the same way: "We share and embrace the objective of an open Internet, as we always have." The cable lobby agrees, telling Ars, "To be clear, we regard this as a debate about means, not ends; we support a free and open Internet."

Everyone loves openness, but the two Republican commissioners worry that FCC rules aren't the way to get there, and both claim that the agency did not have the authority to make such rules.

In an odd twist, the Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees. Despite supporting neutrality, the group argues that "Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality." (This is the basic argument being made now in federal court by Comcast.)

The danger is that such authority over the Internet might today be used for good, but "it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC 'Internet Decency Statement' And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC 'Internet Lawful Use Policy,' created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance."

But Genachowski is pushing ahead. Comments on the draft rules are due in January 2010, with reply comments due in March 2010; final rules could arrive by next summer.

Whatever one thinks of the draft rules, it remains encouraging to see the FCC doing things the "right way." Under predecessor Kevin Martin, a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" might be issued without containing the actual draft text of the rule—a fact that several commissioners noted. And Genachowski has the FCC blogging (even liveblogging the meeting), is overhauling the agency website, and has ditched the horrible RealPlayer streaming setup in favor of Flash video that actually works the first time. Kudos.

52 Reader Comments

Wait I donn't understand how anything as changed. They still have the reasonable network management thing. Can't comcast still do what they did before under these new terms? Further more we granted with the fact that the FCC was never given the right to enforce network neutrality by congress. I don't really see any good news here. Someone please enlight me!

Why does the EFF not think that the FCC should try and manage the ISPs? The way it is going now we have terrible speeds in the US plus high prices so if the current regulations only allow for duopolies then an agency like the FCC should be in a prime spot to succeed where others have failed. Especially since the internet is all about communication.

Nate, your third to last paragraph convey my fears pretty well. I support the fundamental principals of net neutrality, the problem is if you create a watchman to enforce it, one must ask the question "Who watches the Watchman?" I think government regulation could work, but we shouldn't rush to implement it without setting up the proper fail safes and checks. I want to make sure that gvoernment regulation wouldn't lead to the same type of control that China exerts on their ISP's.

Originally posted by Killer Orca:Why does the EFF not think that the FCC should try and manage the ISPs? The way it is going now we have terrible speeds in the US plus high prices so if the current regulations only allow for duopolies then an agency like the FCC should be in a prime spot to succeed where others have failed. Especially since the internet is all about communication.

Read what you said, and think two seconds about it.

The problem is that, if the FCC has these sorts of wide-ranging powers to regulate Internet traffic in the United States, then they're capable of repeating the same catastrophic fuck-ups that they've been perpetuating on American telecom policy for most of the past 75 years.

The danger is that such authority over the Internet might today be used for good, but "it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC 'Internet Decency Statement'… And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC 'Internet Lawful Use Policy,' created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance."

Such is the danger of any power granted to anyone in existence. The danger of future abuse and corruption. However, that danger is by no means limited to the FCC or any government organization. That exact same danger exists in every ISP, corporation, small business, and organization known to man.

In this case, one of the primary differences is that one side's primary goal is to make profit for themselves and the other side is to provide a non-profit based service to the people.

The bottom line boils down to the people who are running the show. If they are corrupt individuals who work more for corporate interests than they do for the people that voted for them then we are going to have problems. If they have the people's best interests in mind then we will have far less problems.

It's too bad we can't force those who are the head of our government to do what Robin Williams suggests. He wants them all to be like Nascar racers who constantly parade around wearing suits covered with logos reflecting all of their biggest corporate sponsors. That would be glorious.

The danger is that such authority over the Internet might today be used for good, but "it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC 'Internet Decency Statement'… And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC 'Internet Lawful Use Policy,' created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance."

Such is the danger of any power granted to anyone in existence. The danger of future abuse and corruption. However, that danger is by no means limited to the FCC or any government organization. That exact same danger exists in every ISP, corporation, small business, and organization known to man.

In this case, one of the primary differences is that one side's primary goal is to make profit for themselves and the other side is to provide a non-profit based service to the people.

The bottom line boils down to the people who are running the show. If they are corrupt individuals who work more for corporate interests than they do for the people that voted for them then we are going to have problems. If they have the people's best interests in mind then we will have far less problems.

It's too bad we can't force those who are the head of our government to do what Robin Williams suggests. He wants them all to be like Nascar racers who constantly parade around wearing suits covered with logos reflecting all of their biggest corporate sponsors. That would be glorious.

This comment was edited by Naame on October 22, 2009 17:05

I agree completely with you here. My biggest concern is that so many government officials have shown in the past that they are decidedly in favour of the big business that lines their pockets instead of the public that offers them a job. As such, I feel fully justified in my suspicion of the new-comers until they have proven themselves.

As of late, it seems like the American judicial system leans toward the "guilty until proven innocent", so I have no qualms whatsoever about treating all the politicians the same way.

Originally posted by Cherlindrea:I agree completely with you here. My biggest concern is that so many government officials have shown in the past that they are decidedly in favour of the big business that lines their pockets instead of the public that offers them a job. As such, I feel fully justified in my suspicion of the new-comers until they have proven themselves.

As of late, it seems like the American judicial system leans toward the "guilty until proven innocent", so I have no qualms whatsoever about treating all the politicians the same way.

I understand. That is why it is important that all of us take the responsibility as citizens to do our research and fact checking before voting anyone into political office. Voting should never be taken lightly and it loses its power if people do not take it seriously beyond simply watching their favorite news network sometimes and visiting the polls once every 4 years. Never forget that we are the real government. Not our representatives. We are the best form of checks and balances that this country has to work with.

In regards to the judicial system specifically, I think the root cause of a lot of their problems revolves around the quality of our written laws. Although, they are not exempt from corruption either. Now, if you mean to express that the system itself is flawed beyond the people who run it then that is an entirely different conversation.

The danger is that such authority over the Internet might today be used for good, but "it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC 'Internet Decency Statement'… And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC 'Internet Lawful Use Policy,' created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance."

Such is the danger of any power granted to anyone in existence. The danger of future abuse and corruption. However, that danger is by no means limited to the FCC or any government organization. That exact same danger exists in every ISP, corporation, small business, and organization known to man.

In this case, one of the primary differences is that one side's primary goal is to make profit for themselves and the other side is to provide a non-profit based service to the people.

The bottom line boils down to the people who are running the show. If they are corrupt individuals who work more for corporate interests than they do for the people that voted for them then we are going to have problems. If they have the people's best interests in mind then we will have far less problems.

It's too bad we can't force those who are the head of our government to do what Robin Williams suggests. He wants them all to be like Nascar racers who constantly parade around wearing suits covered with logos reflecting all of their biggest corporate sponsors. That would be glorious.

This comment was edited by Naame on October 22, 2009 17:05

Thing is, if you feel your ISP is screwing you, then you have the right to switch to a different one. I know people will respond to this saying im an idiot and that all ISP's are monopolies, but I'm right, I didn't like Cox Cable so I switched to Verizon. However, if the FCC screws you, you have no where to turn. This is why I think we ought to be cautious before giving a government agency more powers. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying we shouldn't rush to give them unlimited power because we hate the evil ISP corporations.

Also, you seem to have a belief that government officials will somehow be less corrupt and self-interested because they are appointed by people voted into office? You think they are more likely to act on your behalf because they don't make a profit. I'm not so sure about that, ISP's have a vested interest in keeping as many customers as they can, therefor it seems reasonable to think that they will hesitate to screw over customers who might opt to leave for another ISP. Even if you are right, and the government officials act on our behalf, some of the worst forms of tyrants are those who think they are doing whats best for you.

I know I might be coming off as anti-government, but all I'm saying is that its good for Congress and others to say "hold on a sec FCC, lets make sure that you don't overstep your powers"

The danger is that such authority over the Internet might today be used for good, but "it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC 'Internet Decency Statement'… And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC 'Internet Lawful Use Policy,' created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance."

Such is the danger of any power granted to anyone in existence. The danger of future abuse and corruption. However, that danger is by no means limited to the FCC or any government organization. That exact same danger exists in every ISP, corporation, small business, and organization known to man.

In this case, one of the primary differences is that one side's primary goal is to make profit for themselves and the other side is to provide a non-profit based service to the people.

The bottom line boils down to the people who are running the show. If they are corrupt individuals who work more for corporate interests than they do for the people that voted for them then we are going to have problems. If they have the people's best interests in mind then we will have far less problems.

It's too bad we can't force those who are the head of our government to do what Robin Williams suggests. He wants them all to be like Nascar racers who constantly parade around wearing suits covered with logos reflecting all of their biggest corporate sponsors. That would be glorious.

I understand. That is why it is important that all of us take the responsibility as citizens to do our research and fact checking before voting anyone into political office. Voting should never be taken lightly and it loses its power if people do not take it seriously beyond simply watching their favorite news network sometimes and visiting the polls once every 4 years. Never forget that we are the real government. Not our representatives. We are the best form of checks and balances that this country has to work with.

While I agree with the sentiment here, the reality is a little different. Due to the high cost of running a political campaign only candidates with corporate backing can hope to run. So, in essence, you and I really only get a choice between the AT&T candidate and the Comcast candidate without a "none of the above" option. Until we either enable the "none of the above" choice, with all the cost associated with it, or use tax dollars to underwrite all campaign spending (or both) then democracy in the USA is basically a sham.

I actually think that they should be forced to publicly announce at least their top 10 corporate donations/sponsorships. Then we could vote for the companies we hate the least as well as the political tool we hate the least. Then we would have some idea which company is going to be allowed to fuck us in a given election cycle.

Except that frequently corporations give to all parties/candidates. A good example was the billions Disney and others dumped on congressional candidates in order to get their copyright protections extended another 50? years. They gave to Dems and Republicans, and they gave in just about every district. That way ALL of the elected officials were beholden to Disney and willing to very quickly pass the legislation that Disney wanted with a minimum of debate or attention.

In that situation there is no vote against the corporation becuase every candidate is taking cookies out of the same corporations cookie jar.

Any government regulation is bad. Whether or not you like what they propose today you will hate something coming down the road. Future regulations will be attempts to control what data goes over the internet. Giving them a foot in the door is a bad thing.

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:I actually think that they should be forced to publicly announce at least their top 10 corporate donations/sponsorships.

Corporations don't do the donating, its the CEO and other top executives.

Obama's #1 contributor for his presidential election campaign? The University of California. That means employees (professors, administrators, janitors, whoever) donated to the campaign. McCain's #1 was Merrill Lynch.

Except that frequently corporations give to all parties/candidates. A good example was the billions Disney and others dumped on congressional candidates in order to get their copyright protections extended another 50? years. They gave to Dems and Republicans, and they gave in just about every district. That way ALL of the elected officials were beholden to Disney and willing to very quickly pass the legislation that Disney wanted with a minimum of debate or attention.

In that situation there is no vote against the corporation becuase every candidate is taking cookies out of the same corporations cookie jar.

Perhaps, but it would still be nice to make donation information something that is in the forefront so even the unwashed masses know about it. Even if we can't do anything about it, it would certainly make me feel better better to know who is going to fuck us over at a given time.

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:I actually think that they should be forced to publicly announce at least their top 10 corporate donations/sponsorships.

Corporations don't do the donating, its the CEO and other top executives.

Obama's #1 contributor for his presidential election campaign? The University of California. That means employees (professors, administrators, janitors, whoever) donated to the campaign. McCain's #1 was Merrill Lynch.

Virtually the same thing, just list their names and affiliations you get the same result that way.

Thing is, if you feel your ISP is screwing you, then you have the right to switch to a different one. I know people will respond to this saying im an idiot and that all ISP's are monopolies, but I'm right, I didn't like Cox Cable so I switched to Verizon. However, if the FCC screws you, you have no where to turn. This is why I think we ought to be cautious before giving a government agency more powers. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying we shouldn't rush to give them unlimited power because we hate the evil ISP corporations.

"

I don't think you are an Idiot I think you live in a city of choices. I would like you to do some homework and check how many directors of one large ISP corporation are also a director in a competitor ISP corporation or close to it in a similar industry and quit being so naive. To think that these people don't communicate with each other.

Originally posted by fatherjones:Also, you seem to have a belief that government officials will somehow be less corrupt and self-interested because they are appointed by people voted into office? You think they are more likely to act on your behalf because they don't make a profit.

The people elected to political office are actively seeking control over their fellow human beings, while businessmen want to make a profit by selling you a service/product. I'll take the person trying to cater to me over the one trying to control me any day of the week.

Originally posted by Cherlindrea:As of late, it seems like the American judicial system leans toward the "guilty until proven innocent", so I have no qualms whatsoever about treating all the politicians the same way.

Hate to be nitpicky, but the executive branch assumes you're guilty until proven innocent. The Judicial branch assumes you're innocent until proven guilty. A lot of times people confuse the two by combining them.

Reading the fine print listed in the article above, using the ambiguous word "reasonable" and then trying to define it with four terms (one of which is open ended) is creating a hole large enough for anyone smart enough to see it and argue through it.

I totally disagree. Some government regulation is good, no matter what you are talking about -- it's just a question of how much. Look what happened to the financial market (otc derivatives, etc.) when Greenspan went all Ayn Rand on it...

quote:

Whether or not you like what they propose today you will hate something coming down the road. Future regulations will be attempts to control what data goes over the internet. Giving them a foot in the door is a bad thing.

The major ISP's are government created oligopolies and therefore it's not a true free market, so it cannot operate as a free market should -- therefore someone needs to regulate them because they won't regulate themselves, and the market cannot make them regulate themsevles. Now, if the ISP's had to lease their lines like the phone companies have to there would be a free market type of environment.

Originally posted by fatherjones:Also, you seem to have a belief that government officials will somehow be less corrupt and self-interested because they are appointed by people voted into office? You think they are more likely to act on your behalf because they don't make a profit.

The people elected to political office are actively seeking control over their fellow human beings, while businessmen want to make a profit by selling you a service/product. I'll take the person trying to cater to me over the one trying to control me any day of the week.

If the businessmen's service/product is the only reasonable choice you have, then they don't have to cater to you what so ever -- you have to take what they give you and be happy about it.

i like this sort of legislation/guidance - basically from how i read it you can manage peer to peer on the excuse of a. Network congestiond and 2. copyright infringement (real or assumed) is occuring therefore a .5mb connection will do everyone ok.

Such is the danger of any power granted to anyone in existence. The danger of future abuse and corruption. However, that danger is by no means limited to the FCC or any government organization. That exact same danger exists in every ISP, corporation, small business, and organization known to man.

Yes, but this is why we have separation of powers. I don't think the argument is that the government shouldn't regulate, it's that Congress should regulate and not the FCC. Which makes a lot of sense if you think about it: The FCC may be doing the right thing here, but what about the future? If you accede the FCC this power and then they show their once and future colors as the Federal Censorship Commission, who do you vote out of office? With Congress it's obvious. With the FCC it's the President, and good luck making network neutrality a big enough issue that the Presidential election will turn on it.

It's also a lot easier to play regulatory capture with administrative agencies than with Congress for much the same reason. That's all we need is for Comcast to be regulated exclusively by future FCC chairman John Comcast.

quote:

I actually think that they should be forced to publicly announce at least their top 10 corporate donations/sponsorships. Then we could vote for the companies we hate the least as well as the political tool we hate the least. Then we would have some idea which company is going to be allowed to fuck us in a given election cycle.

Originally posted by Hornedrat:i like this sort of legislation/guidance - basically from how i read it you can manage peer to peer on the excuse of a. Network congestiond and 2. copyright infringement (real or assumed) is occuring therefore a .5mb connection will do everyone ok.

Yet again the corporations get what they want and public suffer.

That, or they can only manage peer to peer if they can prove it is copyright infringement, which would be nearly impossible to do.

That, or they can only manage peer to peer if they can prove it is copyright infringement, which would be nearly impossible to do.

I don't think that was anything the ISPs wanted at all. That was almost certainly put there by Hollywood so that the ISPs can't claim that the FCC won't let them block traffic when Hollywood wants them to.

If by 'free' they mean unfettered, then I am all for it. I will not, however, provide access to those who cannot afford it simply because I choose to pay for a higher connection speed.

That is redistribution of wealth. Taking money from me (in excess charges)to pay for their connection. I am willing to bet that if there were a check box alerting you that "By checking here, you are authorizing us to increase the amount of your bill by x amount to provide for national access. By leaving it blank your bill will be lowered by this amount without a degradation in your connection speed." it would remain unchecked on a large portion of bills.

And before anyone starts winding up, yes I am aware of the multitude of hidden charges that are currently increasing my bill.

Since when has profit become a terrible thing in this world? If anyone here argues that telco's profit is reason enough, and that they should relinquish some of that profit so that people who cannot afford a connection get one, then you should immediately take your personal budget into your payroll office and tell them that you want 100% of what's not needed for you to live to go to the govt.

Otherwise, you are working for a profit, albeit your own, but for a profit none the less. I don't have a problem with that.

It is your income. You earned it. I can not and will not tell you how it should be spent. I would ask the same in return.

My reaction to this is... meh. It seems like it was done to appease those of us who support Net Neutrality, but the rules are so vague and the exceptions so permissive that it probably will accomplish nothing. I'm disappointed.

Originally posted by dlux:The rules giveth, and the rules immediately taketh away. So is that Peterbilt-sized loophole big enough to satisfy the ISPs?

Couldn't have asked it better. I saw *several* trucks...

quote:

Originally posted by fatherjones:Nate, your third to last paragraph convey my fears pretty well. I support the fundamental principals of net neutrality, the problem is if you create a watchman to enforce it, one must ask the question "Who watches the Watchman?" I think government regulation could work, but we shouldn't rush to implement it without setting up the proper fail safes and checks. I want to make sure that gvoernment regulation wouldn't lead to the same type of control that China exerts on their ISP's.

Seconded.

I'd like to see net neutrality. I didn't see a way for internet visitors to petition the FCC for redress of grievances.

And John McCain has introduced the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" specifically to prevent the FCC from enacting any kind of network neutrality regulations. Because regardless of what you think about the merits and potential downfalls of the FCC's proposed regulations, there's nothing that says "freedom" like having Time Warner, Comcast or AT&T degrade the quality of your connection to Hulu and similar services to encourage you to do your patriotic duty and subscribe to their overpriced subscription TV services.

I'm all for net neutrality enforcement. This is nothing of the sort. Given their track record with older media, the FCC should have no authority over ISPs, and should be reduced to a simple radio spectrum licensing and management agency.

Has anyone else noticed that this basically gives the right to ISPs to packet sniff? That's a pretty huge hole, and one that isn't sitting well, even though I don't infringe. Keep your nose outta my packets!

How does this play re the DMCA??? The way I read the DMCA is that if the ISPs act like a dumb pipe they're not liable. If they're packet sniffing, they're not acting like a dumb pipe.

Originally posted by fatherjones:Thing is, if you feel your ISP is screwing you, then you have the right to switch to a different one. I know people will respond to this saying im an idiot and that all ISP's are monopolies, but I'm right, I didn't like Cox Cable so I switched to Verizon. However, if the FCC screws you, you have no where to turn. This is why I think we ought to be cautious before giving a government agency more powers. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying we shouldn't rush to give them unlimited power because we hate the evil ISP corporations.

Surely the FCC is not above the law, even with these proposed regulations? Congress can still over-rule the FCC to force a change in regulations by passing legislation, and the judicial system can force the FCC to abide by their own regulations.

If your ISP sucks, you have the right (but might not have the ability) to change ISPs, or move. If the FCC is failing in their duties, or violating their own regulations, you have the right (but might not have the ability) to go to congress and/or the courts for relief.

I don't really see how the situations are much different, at a practical level, except for that word you put in 'unlimited'. However, since nobody's giving the FCC unlimited powers, and I haven't seen anyone advocate that the FCC should have such, I don't think we need to consider that case.

quote:

fatherjones:Also, you seem to have a belief that government officials will somehow be less corrupt and self-interested because they are appointed by people voted into office? You think they are more likely to act on your behalf because they don't make a profit. I'm not so sure about that, ISP's have a vested interest in keeping as many customers as they can,

Hold on a minute though. Your ISP has a vested interest in making as much money as possible. If keeping a select subset of their current customer base would increase their profits, do you doubt that they'd attempt to dump the customers they don't want? Have you seen how ISPs fight, whine, and seek legislative redress when municipalities attempt to compel them to serve 100% of the area, or even to set a firm timetable and plan for rollouts? That's because some areas are unprofitable to serve, and of the rest, it makes business sense to skim the most profitable areas first. That's a whole different ball-game from 'keeping as many customers as they can'.

quote:

fatherjones:I know I might be coming off as anti-government, but all I'm saying is that its good for Congress and others to say "hold on a sec FCC, lets make sure that you don't overstep your powers"

I agree with this. The FCC should not overstep their powers. OTOH, I also think that some sort of network neutrality regulation is a benefit to everyone, and that the current FCC proposal looks pretty good. If it turns out that this is overstepping the FCC's powers, I would hope that we can get legislation passed allowing them to regulate network neutrality, without giving them 'unlimited' powers.

I think it is notable that no one here seems to mention that the probable only reason this debate is even happening is because there is an equally powerful corporate lobby in opposition to the ISPs, ie. the internet giants like Google, Yahoo, etc that have a vested interest in ISPs not trying to charge them or limit access to their services. If it was just about protecting consumers, we would get fleeced ;-)

Also, did you guys actually watch the hearing? that last exception has to be viewed in the context of the other rules. Just like the article points out, it is meant to apply to non-internet services that compete for bandwidth such as VOD. you don't want your TV to stall out because you started Limewire (AT & T U-verse anyone?).

They spent some time fleshing out the whole 'discrimination' provision, saying that it was specifically to say that ISPs can't throttle a specific type of data or service. The idea is, ISPs can't throttle down P2P, just because it's P2P. Now if it gets to the scale that it is bringing down the network, that would be another matter.

The idea that this would somehow make us worse off than we already are is somewhat premature:-ISPs are already throttling and blocking specific types of data NOW.-this was really just the beginning of what is sure to be a lengthy public comment processes, these rules are by no means final, so feel free to email the FCC and your Representatives and bitch if you want the rules more defined or have other concerns.

Does no one see how this is "sound and fury, signifying nothing"? To the ISPs' surprise, net neutrality somehow became an issue. They fought against it, but the FCC decided to look into it anyway. So the FCC takes a "stand" and puts out "principles"...the exceptions to which allow everything the ISPs are doing and want to do and gut much of what net neutrality proponents wanted to prevent them from doing.